Background: Today, women constitute about half of medical students. However, women are still underrepresented in prestigious specialties such as surgery. Some suggest that this could be explained by women being more oriented towards work-life balance. Aim: The overall aim of this dissertation was to explore aspects of gender in work-life priorities, career plans, clinical experiences and negotiations of professional ideals among medical students and newly graduated doctors, all in a Swedish setting. Method: We based the analysis on data from two different sources: an extensive questionnaire exploring gender and career plans among medical students (paper I-III) and interviews with newly graduated doctors (study IV). In paper I, four classes of first- and final-year medical (N=507, response rate 85%) answered an open-ended question about their future life, 60% were women. We conducted a mixed methods design where we analyzed the answers qualitatively to create categories that could be analyzed quantitatively in the second stage. In paper II, five classes of final-year medical students  were included (N = 372, response rate 89%), and 58% were women. We studied their specialty preference and how they rated the impact that the motivational factors had for their choice. In order to evaluate the independent impact of each motivational factor for specialty preference, we used logistic regression. In paper III, final-year medical students answered two open-ended questions: “Can you recall an event that made you interested of working with a certain specialty?” and “Can you recall an event that made you uninterested of working with a certain specialty?”. The response rate was 62% (N = 250),  and 58% were women. The analysis was similar to paper I, but here we focused on the qualitative results. In paper IV, thematic interviews were conducted in 2014 and 2015. We made a purposeful sampling of 15 junior doctors, including nine women and six men from eight different hospitals. Data collection and analysis was inspired by constructivist grounded theory methodology. Results: When looking at the work-life priorities of medical students and junior doctors it is clear that both men and women want more to life than work in their ideal future. The junior doctors renounced fully devoted and loyal ideal and presented a self-narrative where family and leisure was important to cope and stay empathic throughout their professional lives. The specialty preferences and the highly rated motives for choosing them were relatively gender neutral. However, the gender neutrality came to an end when the final-year medical students described clinical experiences that affected their specialty preference. Women were more often deterred by workplace cultures, whereas men were more often deterred by knowledge area, suggesting that it is a male privilege to choose a specialty according to interest. Among the newly graduated doctors, another male privilege seemed to be that men were able to pass more swiftly as real doctors, whereas the women experienced more dissonance between their self-understanding and being perceived as more junior and self-doubting. Conclusions: The career plans and work-life priorities of doctors-to-be were relatively gender neutral. Both female and male doctors, intended to balance work not only with a family but also with leisure. This challenges the health care system to establish more adaptive and flexible work conditions. Gender segregation in specialty choice is not the result of gender-dichotomized specialty preferences starting in medical school. This calls for a re-evaluation of the understanding where gender is seen as a mere background characteristic, priming women and men for different specialties.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

La collaboration est une compétence essentielle que les futurs médecins doivent développer. La détermination des niveaux de compétence est cruciale dans la planification de cet apprentissage. Les échelles descriptives suscitent un intérêt croissant, car elles décrivent en termes qualitatifs les performances attendues. Nous inspirant de la méthodologie mixte de Blais, Laurier, & Rousseau (2009), nous avons construit en cinq étapes une échelle de niveau de compétence de collaboration: 1) formulation d’une liste d’indicateurs situés à quatre niveaux de la formation médicale (préclinique, externat, résidence junior et sénior) par les chercheurs (n= 3) et un groupe d’éducateurs (n=7), leaders pédagogiques possédant une expertise pour la compétence de collaboration; 2) sondage en ligne comprenant quatre questionnaires portant sur les niveaux de 118 indicateurs, auprès d’enseignants cliniciens représentant les différentes spécialités (n=277); 3) analyse, avec le modèle partial credit de Rasch, des réponses aux questionnaires appariés par calibration concurrente; 4) détermination des niveaux des indicateurs par les éducateurs et les chercheurs; et 5) rédaction de l’échelle à partir des indicateurs de chaque niveau. L’analyse itérative des réponses montre une adéquation au modèle de Rasch et répartit les indicateurs sur l’échelle linéaire aux quatre niveaux. Les éducateurs déterminent le niveau des 111 indicateurs retenus en tenant compte des résultats du sondage et de la cohérence avec le curriculum. L’échelle comporte un paragraphe descriptif par niveau, selon trois capacités : 1) participer au fonctionnement d’une équipe; 2) prévenir et gérer les conflits; et 3) planifier, coordonner et dispenser les soins en équipe. Cette échelle rend explicites les comportements collaboratifs attendus à la fin de chaque niveau et est utile à la planification de l’apprentissage et de l’évaluation de cette compétence. La discordance entre les niveaux choisis par les éducateurs et ceux issus de l’analyse des réponses des enseignants cliniciens est principalement due au faible choix de réponse du niveau préclinique par les enseignants et aux problèmes d’adéquation pour les indicateurs décrivant la gestion des conflits. Cette recherche marque une avan- cée dans la compréhension de la compétence de collaboration et démontre l’efficacité de la méthodologie de Blais (2009) dans un contexte de compétence transversale, en sciences de la santé. Cette méthodologie pourrait aider à approfondir les trajectoires de développement d’autres compétences. / Being able to collaborate is a key competence that physicians need to learn. Determining competence levels is crucial to planning the learning process. By defining performance levels in qualitative terms, descriptive scales are a promising avenue. We developed a five-stage competence-level scale based on Blais, Laurier & Rousseau (2009) mixed methodology: 1) having researchers (n= 3) and a group of educators (n= 7), pedagogical leaders with expertise in the field of collaboration, list indicators that apply to the four training levels (preclinical, clerkship, junior and senior residencies); 2) conducting with clinician teachers, representative of various specialties (n= 277), an online survey that includes four questionnaires on the 118 indicator levels; 3) performing an analysis using the Rasch partial credit model on responses to questionnaires linked through concurrent calibration; 4) having educators and researchers determine the indicator levels; 5) creating a scale based on indicators at each level. The iterative analysis of the responses shows that it fits the Rasch model and distributes indicators on the linear scale on the four levels. The educators were responsible for determining the level of 111 selected indicators by taking into account the results of the survey and coherence with the curriculum. The scale includes a descriptive paragraph for each level as it applies to the 3 abilities : 1) taking part in running the team; 2) preventing and managing conflicts; 3) planning, coordinating and providing care as a team. The scale explains the collaborative behaviors expected at the end of each level and can be used to plan learning and evaluate competence. The source of disagreement between the levels set by the educators and those resulting from the analysis of clinician teacher responses are mostly explained by the low response by teachers at the preclinical level and misfit issues for the indicators describing conflict management. The research provided a broader understanding of collaboration competency and demonstrated the effectiveness of the Blais et al.1 methodology within the context of cross-curricular competency in health sciences. The methodology could be useful to go deaper into other competencies development path.

La collaboration est une compétence essentielle que les futurs médecins doivent développer. La détermination des niveaux de compétence est cruciale dans la planification de cet apprentissage. Les échelles descriptives suscitent un intérêt croissant, car elles décrivent en termes qualitatifs les performances attendues. Nous inspirant de la méthodologie mixte de Blais, Laurier, & Rousseau (2009), nous avons construit en cinq étapes une échelle de niveau de compétence de collaboration: 1) formulation d’une liste d’indicateurs situés à quatre niveaux de la formation médicale (préclinique, externat, résidence junior et sénior) par les chercheurs (n= 3) et un groupe d’éducateurs (n=7), leaders pédagogiques possédant une expertise pour la compétence de collaboration; 2) sondage en ligne comprenant quatre questionnaires portant sur les niveaux de 118 indicateurs, auprès d’enseignants cliniciens représentant les différentes spécialités (n=277); 3) analyse, avec le modèle partial credit de Rasch, des réponses aux questionnaires appariés par calibration concurrente; 4) détermination des niveaux des indicateurs par les éducateurs et les chercheurs; et 5) rédaction de l’échelle à partir des indicateurs de chaque niveau. L’analyse itérative des réponses montre une adéquation au modèle de Rasch et répartit les indicateurs sur l’échelle linéaire aux quatre niveaux. Les éducateurs déterminent le niveau des 111 indicateurs retenus en tenant compte des résultats du sondage et de la cohérence avec le curriculum. L’échelle comporte un paragraphe descriptif par niveau, selon trois capacités : 1) participer au fonctionnement d’une équipe; 2) prévenir et gérer les conflits; et 3) planifier, coordonner et dispenser les soins en équipe. Cette échelle rend explicites les comportements collaboratifs attendus à la fin de chaque niveau et est utile à la planification de l’apprentissage et de l’évaluation de cette compétence. La discordance entre les niveaux choisis par les éducateurs et ceux issus de l’analyse des réponses des enseignants cliniciens est principalement due au faible choix de réponse du niveau préclinique par les enseignants et aux problèmes d’adéquation pour les indicateurs décrivant la gestion des conflits. Cette recherche marque une avan- cée dans la compréhension de la compétence de collaboration et démontre l’efficacité de la méthodologie de Blais (2009) dans un contexte de compétence transversale, en sciences de la santé. Cette méthodologie pourrait aider à approfondir les trajectoires de développement d’autres compétences. / Being able to collaborate is a key competence that physicians need to learn. Determining competence levels is crucial to planning the learning process. By defining performance levels in qualitative terms, descriptive scales are a promising avenue. We developed a five-stage competence-level scale based on Blais, Laurier & Rousseau (2009) mixed methodology: 1) having researchers (n= 3) and a group of educators (n= 7), pedagogical leaders with expertise in the field of collaboration, list indicators that apply to the four training levels (preclinical, clerkship, junior and senior residencies); 2) conducting with clinician teachers, representative of various specialties (n= 277), an online survey that includes four questionnaires on the 118 indicator levels; 3) performing an analysis using the Rasch partial credit model on responses to questionnaires linked through concurrent calibration; 4) having educators and researchers determine the indicator levels; 5) creating a scale based on indicators at each level. The iterative analysis of the responses shows that it fits the Rasch model and distributes indicators on the linear scale on the four levels. The educators were responsible for determining the level of 111 selected indicators by taking into account the results of the survey and coherence with the curriculum. The scale includes a descriptive paragraph for each level as it applies to the 3 abilities : 1) taking part in running the team; 2) preventing and managing conflicts; 3) planning, coordinating and providing care as a team. The scale explains the collaborative behaviors expected at the end of each level and can be used to plan learning and evaluate competence. The source of disagreement between the levels set by the educators and those resulting from the analysis of clinician teacher responses are mostly explained by the low response by teachers at the preclinical level and misfit issues for the indicators describing conflict management. The research provided a broader understanding of collaboration competency and demonstrated the effectiveness of the Blais et al.1 methodology within the context of cross-curricular competency in health sciences. The methodology could be useful to go deaper into other competencies development path.